[VHFcontesting] VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 32, Issue 43
KG4RUL - Dennis Zabawa
kg4rul at comcast.net
Thu Aug 18 12:33:17 EDT 2005
I AM LEAVING TIHS GROUP BECAUSE OF THE INCESSANT RANTING ABOUT
'CAPTIVE/PACK/ETC." ROVERS!
I INVITE ANYONE ELSE WHO IS SICK AND TIRED OF THIS TO DO THE SAME AND LET
THE GROUP KNOW WHY YOU HAVE LEFT.
GOODBYE AND GOOD RIDDANCE!
Dennis KG4RUL
----- Original Message -----
From: <vhfcontesting-request at contesting.com>
To: <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 11:46
Subject: VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 32, Issue 43
> Send VHFcontesting mailing list submissions to
> vhfcontesting at contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> vhfcontesting-request at contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> vhfcontesting-owner at contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of VHFcontesting digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Captive Rovers - a mythical beast? (Kenneth E. Harker)
> 2. Re: Captive Rovers - a mythical beast? (Bill Olson)
> 3. Unproven allegations must STOP!!! (Bill Burgess)
> 4. Kudos and support for KE3HT and rovers (Todd Sprinkmann)
> 5. Re: What about me? I am captive. (Buck Calabro)
> 6. Re: What about me? I am captive. (Kenneth E. Harker)
> 7. Re: What about me? I am captive. (Tree)
> 8. Re: Kudos and support for KE3HT and rovers (Ed Kucharski)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:10:45 -0700
> From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker at kenharker.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Captive Rovers - a mythical beast?
> To: jon jones <n0jk at hotmail.com>
> Cc: vhfcontesting at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <20050818151045.GA73128 at kenharker.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 01:15:38PM +0000, jon jones wrote:
> > Like the dragon or unicorn, is the captive rover is a "mythical beast?"
I
> > think I saw one with my own eyes through the mist...
> >
> > Years ago, back in the dark ages of VHF Contesting, before computer
logging,
> > WSJT, FSK-441a/JT-65, Cabrillo, and web clusters existed; when VHF
radios
> > "glowed in the dark" - a great VHF Contest station was built on a hill
> > overlooking the wheatfields. It was known far and wide as "WB0DRL."
> >
> > One sunny June morning, the loyal knights at WB0DRL decided they wanted
to
> > win the contest in the m/m category. To further this cause, they
equipped
> > several vehicles with state of the art radio gear from 50 - 2304 MHz +
10
> > GHz. Operators were recruited to drive and operate these war wagons.
> >
> > Once the rovers were ready, they were sent out on their journey. Their
> > mandate was simple, drive like the south wind, stop in a new grid, work
the
> > "mother station," then on to the next grid. If any other stations were
> > around - work them quickly but don't tarry. Each rover covered over
1,500
> > miles that weekend.
> >
> > WB0DRL came within striking distance of winning it all.
> >
> > Were these "captive" rovers?
>
> Aside from the technicality that this predates the official creation of
the
> rover category, yes - that is an excellent example.
>
> --
> Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
> kenharker at kenharker.com
> http://www.kenharker.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:16:08 +0000
> From: "Bill Olson" <callbill at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Captive Rovers - a mythical beast?
> To: vhfcontesting at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <BAY106-F104A67F5BC10B3481BF1DBC6B20 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> >Aside from the technicality that this predates the official creation of
the
> >rover category, yes - that is an excellent example.
>
> I would say an "excellent example of an outstanding effort"!!
>
> OK, I'm done back to listening,... psssshhhhhhh...
>
> bill, K1DY
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:32:50 -0400
> From: "Bill Burgess" <ve3cru at rac.ca>
> Subject: [VHFcontesting] Unproven allegations must STOP!!!
> To: <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <001901c5a40a$181e6300$8770fea9 at myhost>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> There are a few, who being unable to win through their own merits, are
slandering others with unproven allegations. This is the lowest form of
contester, and one we must not bow down to.
>
> I don't care what may have happened in 1995, 1990 or 1985, I care about
what is happening in the year 2005. It is time these name callers specified
the year they are referring to, the ham they are referring to, and the grid
or grids.
>
> Rover logs prove the rover was in the grid and that the rover did make a
qso from that grid. This does not prove anything else, even if no other
contact was made in that grid. The accusers MUST prove:
>
> That there were other signals to be heard in the grid and area the rover
was in;
> That the rover was capable of hearing those signals;
> and
> That the rover heard and ignored the signal or signals known above.
>
> To do so requires that another ham with similar antennas and gear be in
the same area at the same time. This will never happen. Therefore, it is
time to stop these unfounded accusations.
>
> The lowest form of contester makes blind accusations, then requires the
accused to prove themselves innocent.
> If you do not have proof of wrongdoing, don't suggest it is taking place.
>
> Yes, I do know of a dedicated rover here in Ontario back in the late '80's
and early 90's. But it all ceased when the base station became a SK 11
years ago. I have supper every Thursday btw with this old captive rover.
>
> I do not for one minute believe we have captive rovers in the north-east
area of the North American continent now. I cannot speak for anywhere
beyond. The past is history. While a few are still stuck there, the rest
of us must move on and continue to be progressive and happy rovers and
contesters.
>
> Looking forward to contesting and rovering with all of you for many years
to come. Rovers are a vital asset to VHF contesting. Stand tall, and keep
that aluminum in the air.
>
> 73,
>
> Bill VE3CRU/R
>
> Email: ve3cru at rac.ca
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:17:47 -0500
> From: "Todd Sprinkmann" <sprinkies at excel.net>
> Subject: [VHFcontesting] Kudos and support for KE3HT and rovers
> To: <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <03c001c5a407$ff3755b0$0400a8c0 at todd260gzv3c5d>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I want to thank KE3HT for making his website and logs available. I
> could look at stuff like that all day long.
>
> I also want to reassure Tim that I see no way he could be categorized
> as a captive rover. I'm not running for the position of judge and jury,
but
> I was mystified as to why he feels like he could be a captive rover. And
> looking at just his June 2005 was very instructive. There's Q's with over
> 2 dozen different calls. Sure plenty of those Q's are with well-known
> mutli-ops and big guns, but so what? Those types of stations are going
> to be well represented in anyone's logs. No conspiracy there, LOL.
>
> Tim even said, "My June logs will show that I mainly worked three
> stations *plus anyone else that could hear me.* (Emphasis between
> the asterisks is mine). Hey, I don't know about anyone else here, but
> as far as I'm concerned, a rover (or fixed station) that works anyone else
> that can be heard is clearly competing in a sportsmanlike manner.
>
> I also salute Tim for competing even though he states "he cannot win
> the rover category." He realizes what's fun for him and then he goes out
> and does it with considerable style and capability, from what I read on
> his website. I don't think anyone here is saying that a rover or fixed
> station must absolutely follow a rigid protocol designed to work the
> absolute maximum of stations at all times. If KE3HT wants to try and go
> for the gold with DX on the microwaves, good on him. The only thing
> that would be objectionable would be deliberately not working stations
> because they weren't part of a hypothetical mothership.
>
> I am clearly on Tim's side, and I am clearly on the side of all rovers
and
> fixed stations that get out and contest and increase activity. Tim's logs
> show to me that he is far from a captive rover. I'm not really sure where
> Tim got the idea that he was called out. I wish he (and the others who
feel
> threatened) could point out some specific text that they felt labeled or
> criticized by. Tim did not say anything about me specifically, but since
I
> have stated very clearly my opinions before about captive roving, I wanted
> very much to respond to his post and salute his efforts.
>
> Tim, if you can show me who wants you to quit roving, please do so. I
> wish you roved within range of EN63ao, LOL! Maybe something crazy
> will happen in a contest someday and we'll work each other on one or
> more of your bands. I often have success raising W3SO, at least. :)
>
> I just don't see "all this anti rover hatred". I doubt *anyone* wants
to "kill
> off rovers like you". Again, I appreciate the chance to go through your
> excellent website and learn from it. My only quarrel is with the
practices
> of captive roving as defined by W5OV -- Bob's excellent post today. Bob
> got right back to the point, as I see it. It seems like a lot of detours
are
> being taken and that's where this topic gets stuck in a not-so-good place.
>
> 73,
> Todd KC9BQA EN63ao
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:24:09 -0400
> From: Buck Calabro <kc2hiz at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] What about me? I am captive.
> To: vhfcontesting at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <e06e8ab0050818082456e0990a at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> > Of course, there is a continuum of
> > possibilities here. A rover might be
> > "captive" to a fixed station on higher
> > GHz bands, *only* making contacts
> > with the 'mother' station on those
> > higher GHz bands but is actively
> > pursuing contacts on lower (GHz
> > and MHz) bands (and, hopefully
> > *making* such contacts)...
>
> That's almost me. I can't get through to hardly anybody else, so I
> make sure I talk to a super contest station. My other option is to
> make QSOs with a super rover who can find me AND who has a microwave
> shot at me. More often than not, this requires pre-planning, as in 'I
> will be on hill A at 1200UTC. Hill A has a clear LOS to hill B. If
> you are at hill B at 1200UTC we can work each other.' If
> circumstances (road construction!) delay that somewhat informal
> schedule, we only work on the low bands; often while mobile. But not
> even that works sometimes if we are both travelling down in a
> different valley...
>
> > is *that* behavior a problem? Hard to say.
>
> Tree seemed to indicate that it is OK. I work as many as I can on all
> bands, but the logs don't show the hours I spend in (say) FN21 calling
> CQ without a contact.
>
> --buck
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:35:40 -0700
> From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker at kenharker.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] What about me? I am captive.
> To: w3sz <w3sz at comcast.net>
> Cc: vhfcontesting at contesting.com, ke3ht at ke3ht.org
> Message-ID: <20050818153540.GB73128 at kenharker.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 03:00:12AM -0400, w3sz wrote:
>
> > The captive rover is a mythical beast. ...
> >
> > I also know the guys who make up W3CCX and W8GP, two other big multi-op
> > stations in this part of the country, and while I have not visited their
> > multioperator stations, I know them well enough so that I do not believe
> > that they have captive rovers either. So I really do not believe that
the
> > fictitious beast 'captive rover' exists at all.
>
> If captive rovers are "mythical" then explain why the ARRL's recent Ad-Hoc
> VHF/UHF Study Committee was tasked with (among other things) "Strengthen
> the rules to minimize the rover practices known as grid circling and
captive
> rovers." The final report (delivered to the ARRL BOD meeting July 16-17,
> 2004) had this to say on the subject:
>
> "Grid circling is the practice of pairs rovers going to the junction of
> 4 grid squares and working each other at short distances while moving
> through each of the grids. This can mean 16 QSOs per band for 10 or
more
> bands, and can generate huge scores (millions of points) while not
> encouraging contacts with other contest participants. Requiring a
minimum
> distance for rover QSOs would help to minimize this type of activity. A
> captive rover is a station that only (or primarily) works one
multi-operator
> station during the contest. This may be the norm in less populated
areas
> of the country because there is little other activity, but in populated
> areas it can generate considerable angst among competitors. The
practice
> that generates the most heat is a rover that only works one multi-op and
> does not work others in the area. Many of them never submit logs.
Because
> the rovers are usually going to rare grids and have microwave equipment
> on multiple bands, their efforts can really boost the scores of those
> they work. The current rules are fairly weak in their attempt to
encourage
> rovers to operate in a way that gives a chance to all stations in the
area
> to work them and should be strengthened."
>
> The Study Committee members were K1KI, W5ZN, N7NG, N0AX, K1JX, K2UA, W3ZZ,
> AA7A, KM0T, and N1ND. As from the suggestion of minimum distance rover
> QSOs (which has not been implemented in the rules yet) the committee
failed
> to arrive at a consensus solution to the captive rover problem. But the
> committee very clearly identifies that there is a captive rover problem
> the deserves correction for the health of the contests.
>
> We have also heard testimony from one of the log checkers, N6TR, that in
> his personal opinion these kind of operations both exist and are obvious
> for a human looking at the logs to spot. Tree is a member of the CQ
Contest
> Hall of Fame and lives far away from any of the recent circle rover and
> captive rover activities. There should be no reason to doubt him.
>
> > I also know most of the rovers in this part of the country and know that
> > they are not captive, and do not avoid working other stations [what a
> > ridiculous and demeaning concept]!
>
> Art KY1K has offered eye-witness testimony to the contrary:
>
http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2005-08/msg00056.html
>
> I don't see how anyone can deny that captive rovers exist.
>
> --
> Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
> kenharker at kenharker.com
> http://www.kenharker.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:40:10 -0700
> From: Tree <tree at kkn.net>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] What about me? I am captive.
> To: vhfcontesting at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <20050818154010.GA74784 at kkn.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> > Tree seemed to indicate that it is OK. I work as many as I can on all
> > bands, but the logs don't show the hours I spend in (say) FN21 calling
> > CQ without a contact.
>
> An important point - most, if not all, of the rovers who are on microwave
> are also on VHF. In most places in the country, it is pretty easy to work
> a handful of stations on 144.200 with a modest setup (anything with
> horizontal polarization and 30 watts).
>
> The "mythical" captive rovers I speak of are not doing this.
>
> Proof? Sorry - no calls here. There have been private discussions with
> some of the stations, but I am not at liberty to disclose calls. If you
> are going to require 100 percent proof before you see this as something
> to deal with - then you win.
>
> Anti-rover? I hope that protecting rovers from grid circling isn't seen
> as anti-rover. This thread did morph into anti-captive rover - which I
> don't agree is anti-rover. Certainly, I wouldn't consider someone who is
> mostly working K8GP and W2SZ as a captive rover. A captive rover would
> be someone who works just one of those two stations and shun QSOs with
> other stations. This might take the form of only operating two meters
> on some obscure frequency - and not making an honest effort to work the
> masses on - or near - the calling frequency. I have heard that their
> equipment can only operate on specific frequencies - a convenient excuse.
> But, to me, this really means that the station is only operating with
> the intent of working the mother station. If any rover really feels they
> can't afford the equipment to get a radio that will work on 144.200 - then
> please come forward, and I will have the Boring Amateur Radio Club buy you
> a radio.
>
> 73 Tree N6TR / K7RAT
> tree at kkn.net
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:46:04 -0400
> From: Ed Kucharski <k3dne at adelphia.net>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Kudos and support for KE3HT and rovers
> To: "Todd Sprinkmann" <sprinkies at excel.net>,
> <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050818114340.01ee54f8 at pop.dc2.adelphia.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Todd,
> Very well said. I couldn't say it better and won't even try. Thanks.
> Ed
> K3DNE
>
>
>
> At 11:17 AM 8/18/2005, Todd Sprinkmann wrote:
> > I want to thank KE3HT for making his website and logs available. I
> >could look at stuff like that all day long.
> >
> > I also want to reassure Tim that I see no way he could be categorized
> >as a captive rover. I'm not running for the position of judge and jury,
but
> >I was mystified as to why he feels like he could be a captive rover. And
> >looking at just his June 2005 was very instructive. There's Q's with
over
> >2 dozen different calls. Sure plenty of those Q's are with well-known
> >mutli-ops and big guns, but so what? Those types of stations are going
> >to be well represented in anyone's logs. No conspiracy there, LOL.
> >
> > Tim even said, "My June logs will show that I mainly worked three
> >stations *plus anyone else that could hear me.* (Emphasis between
> >the asterisks is mine). Hey, I don't know about anyone else here, but
> >as far as I'm concerned, a rover (or fixed station) that works anyone
else
> >that can be heard is clearly competing in a sportsmanlike manner.
> >
> > I also salute Tim for competing even though he states "he cannot win
> >the rover category." He realizes what's fun for him and then he goes out
> >and does it with considerable style and capability, from what I read on
> >his website. I don't think anyone here is saying that a rover or fixed
> >station must absolutely follow a rigid protocol designed to work the
> >absolute maximum of stations at all times. If KE3HT wants to try and go
> >for the gold with DX on the microwaves, good on him. The only thing
> >that would be objectionable would be deliberately not working stations
> >because they weren't part of a hypothetical mothership.
> >
> > I am clearly on Tim's side, and I am clearly on the side of all rovers
and
> >fixed stations that get out and contest and increase activity. Tim's
logs
> >show to me that he is far from a captive rover. I'm not really sure
where
> >Tim got the idea that he was called out. I wish he (and the others who
feel
> >threatened) could point out some specific text that they felt labeled or
> >criticized by. Tim did not say anything about me specifically, but since
I
> >have stated very clearly my opinions before about captive roving, I
wanted
> >very much to respond to his post and salute his efforts.
> >
> > Tim, if you can show me who wants you to quit roving, please do so. I
> >wish you roved within range of EN63ao, LOL! Maybe something crazy
> >will happen in a contest someday and we'll work each other on one or
> >more of your bands. I often have success raising W3SO, at least. :)
> >
> > I just don't see "all this anti rover hatred". I doubt *anyone* wants
> > to "kill
> >off rovers like you". Again, I appreciate the chance to go through your
> >excellent website and learn from it. My only quarrel is with the
practices
> >of captive roving as defined by W5OV -- Bob's excellent post today. Bob
> >got right back to the point, as I see it. It seems like a lot of detours
are
> >being taken and that's where this topic gets stuck in a not-so-good
place.
> >
> >73,
> >Todd KC9BQA EN63ao
> >_______________________________________________
> >VHFcontesting mailing list
> >VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
> End of VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 32, Issue 43
> *********************************************
>
More information about the VHFcontesting
mailing list